Santa Maria is looking for a way to keep the Paul Nelson Aquatic Center open year-round next year, despite an initial budget proposal that would have closed it for six months from December to May.
“Please be sure we are listening to the community’s feedback,” Mayor Alice Patino told a packed City Council chamber on June 2. “Our goal is to address the current budget concerns and collaboratively work to explore any kind of resolution that we can have and to preserve that year-round access.”
The city received 120 public comment letters about the closure prior to the council meeting that night, when the city discussed the proposed budget for the 2026-28 fiscal years. The almost $350,000 in potential pool savings was part of a slew of cost-cutting measures city staff proposed to make up for a projected $18 million budget deficit for the two-year cycle.
Santa Maria resident Nancy Jo Ward was one of many who advocated for the city to figure out how to keep the pool open.
“Every dollar matters, but I’d ask you to weigh the savings against the community,” she said during public comment. “This facility has deep roots in Santa Maria, and I say that as someone who swims there.”
Patino said that the budget ad hoc committee would meet with pool representatives to discuss ways to bridge the operating fund gap prior to June 16, when the council plans to adopt the full budget.
Other cost saving proposals included cutting contracting costs and staff training costs, reducing the library’s hours, eliminating subsidies to local museums and the United Way, and deleting unfilled vacant positions. City Finance Director Rebecca Campbell said the 2026-27 fiscal year was balanced out with the help of $7.3 million in Local Economic Augmentation (LEAP) funding, but doing the same to close the gap for the 2027-28 fiscal year wouldn’t be possible.
“We have a lot less reserves than what we were tracking,” she said, adding that an audit of the 2023-24 fiscal year showed that. “On the budget side, it was showing up in two funds, so we thought we had more money than we did, and so the audit caught it, and now we’re back to reality.”
The city should have about two and a half months’ worth of operating expenses in reserves, Campbell said, or more than $16 million. The future reserve fund is projected to hold less than $1 million. That’s something Campbell’s planning to help change with a new policy proposal, she said, adding that the current policy allows for too much movement between different city funds.
“We’re going to solve this deficit. We are. We have to,” Campbell said.
Although, the city implemented a “hiring chill” that got it through a couple of tough budget years without laying off any staff, Campbell said that could change in the future. Personnel costs are the city’s largest expenditure.
“Our wiggle room was the vacancies,” she said. “Now we’re at the point where most of our costs are personnel costs, and we’re at the point where people will be impacted.”
In addition to considering future personnel cuts, she said city staff is also looking at selling “various residential sites throughout the city” and evaluating Measure U funds to ensure that the way they’re spent aligns with city policy.
“Our financial rebalancing efforts are not yet complete,” Campbell said.
This article appears in June 11 – June 18, 2026.
